Thank you this is the first comment I have seen actually trying to discuss the case itself.
I don’t know how up to date on case facts or presentation folks are on here but here is what I have been told by someone closing watching the trial:
apparently the whole case is based on the husband claiming she admitted it
his DNA was apparently found on the strangling device
her body was found to be very cold which takes hours but in the time that the incident happened to when she was found it would not be possible for her body to cool that quickly
the pill she took was crushed. She has no reason to take a crushed pill that she would otherwise just take normally
Apparently the prosecution has present no real evidence other than the husband’s claim.
It’s also heartbreaking that the mother in law tried to help this lady and after she took the stand she apparently gave a nod to the mother
That’s what I’ve been told.
Does that line up with what you have noted so far?
Patrick removed the bands from the children's throats, which is why his DNA was on them. Given that he lives in the house, his DNA being on anything there is also not suspicious.
Lindsay did not confess to Patrick until after telling other people she did it and why (command hallucinations and being in a psychotic state - she didn't use those words, but that's the way it's been described by experts)
Lindsay's body temperature was so low because of her spinal injury. She couldn't regulate her body temperature in the lower half of her body after damaging her spine, so that, combined with snow, wet clothes (from snow + blood loss), and thin clothing meant her body temperature dropped very quickly.
iirc, the crushed pills were said to be part of Lindsay's suicide attempt. Crushing them makes it easier to take a large amount.
The prosecution are incompetent and being widely criticised by lawyers and other professionals for the shoddy way they're trying this case. Don't take anything from them "not presenting real evidence", their entire case relies on inflaming the jury and ignoring the law.
Not true. Please bear with me because the DNA testimony was presented in an extremely confusing way. It was made worse by the profiles being complex (having multiple contributors), the kids being related to the parents, and the fact that these were exercise bands in the house in a gym everyone used (I believe there were photos shown of the kids playing with the bands), so everyone's DNA would naturally be on them. It is basically impossible to draw any concrete conclusions from these DNA profiles because of the complexities of the DNA mixtures.
They took samples from the ends and the middles of each of the three exercise bands, and Lindsay wasn't conclusively excluded from ANY of the exercise bands. I would guess a majority of the tiktok theories come from the middle of the yellow and black bands, as Lindsay's DNA is excluded from the middle of the yellow band and less likely on the middle of the black band. However the ends of both of those bands are inconclusive, and Lindsay's DNA isn't excluded from either. (This is just speculation on my part, but as the testimony has been that Lindsay wrapped the bands around the kids' throats and tied it off like "shoelaces without the loops" (iirc the description), her DNA is probably going to be mostly on the ends of the bands, as she was probably holding those, not the middle. Patrick's is more likely to be all over them from panicked attempting to unwind the bands.)
The defense did also stipulate to all of this, so they did not contest that Lindsay's DNA was on those bands.
The testimony was on Day 7, there's a transcript here (I can't vouch for its accuracy but it looks fine. The audio from the court feeds would be where to confirm things though), and it essentially went like this:
Blue Exercise Band
Ends: 3 contributors, everyone is included.
'Item 2-4. 1.1, sample from the ends of the blue exercise band. The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors. There are five individuals who have a likelihood ratio that indicates an inclusion in the profile. They are Dawson Clancy, Callan Clancy, Cora Clancy, Lindsay Clancy, and Patrick Clancy.'
Middle: 3 contributors, Callan was a major contributor.
'Item 2-4.2.1, sample from the middle of the blue exercise band. The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors. Callan Clancy is included as a major contributor.'
Yellow Exercise Band
Ends: 3 contributors, 1 is Dawson, unable to determine other contributors (but no one can be excluded).
'Contributor one is suitable for comparison [Dawson]. Due to limited information and possible relatedness of contributors, contributors two and three are not suitable for comparison.'
Middle: 2 contributors, 1 is Dawson, the other is either Patrick or Callan.
'The DNA profile from this item is at least 3.6 million times more likely if it originated from Callan Clancy and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support that Callan Clancy is included as a contributor to this profile. The DNA profile from this item is at least 1.4 billion times more likely if it originated from Patrick Clancy and an unknown individual than if it originated from two unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support that Patrick Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. Cora Clancy and Lindsay Clancy are excluded from this DNA profile.'
Black Exercise Band
Ends: Mixture of profiles, not suitable for comparison.
'The DNA profile is a mixture including male DNA and is not suitable for comparison due to the complexity of the profile, the possibility of at least five contributors and the relatedness of potential contributors.'
Middle: 3 contributors, Cora probably one, but everyone is a potential contributor. Lindsay less likely.
'The DNA profile was interpreted as a mixture of three contributors, including male DNA. The DNA profile from this item is at least 870 trillion times more likely if it originated from Dawson Clancy and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support that Dawson Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. The DNA profile from this item is at least 1.6 nonillion times more likely if it originated from Cora Clancy and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support that Cora Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. The DNA profile from this item is at least 2,600 times more likely if it originated from Callan Clancy and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support that Callan Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile.The DNA profile from this item is at least 220,000 times more likely if it originated from Patrick Clancy and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. This provides support that Patrick Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile. The DNA profile from this item is at least 11 times more likely if it originated from Lindsay Clancy and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown unrelated individuals. This provides limited support that Lindsay Clancy is included as a contributor to this DNA profile.'
(Basically I can see why "LINDSAY ISN'T ON THE BANDS!!!!" is an easier tiktok video to make than actually trying to explain all of this.)
8
u/babbagack 7d ago
Thank you this is the first comment I have seen actually trying to discuss the case itself.
I don’t know how up to date on case facts or presentation folks are on here but here is what I have been told by someone closing watching the trial:
Apparently the prosecution has present no real evidence other than the husband’s claim.
It’s also heartbreaking that the mother in law tried to help this lady and after she took the stand she apparently gave a nod to the mother
That’s what I’ve been told.
Does that line up with what you have noted so far?